Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 11:58 In article <eg325f$5l0$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78(a)News.Individual.NET>, > Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh(a)4ax.com>, To-Email- > >Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com says... > >> On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET>, > >> > Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> [snip] > >> >> > >> >>Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without > >> >>warrant. Get with the program. > >> >> > >> > > >> >Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to > involve > >> >someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for > >> >certain key words and phrases. > >> > > >> [snip] > >> > >> That's rarely the case, and not without warrant. > >> > >> What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_, > >> "To/From" data. > >> > >> From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge. > > > >YEs, and the foreign "taps" were intercepted calls from > >"interesting" foreign numbers. They were not taps on phones. > > > > Not in the old sense of physically connecting something to a phone. The NSA > was intercepting the calls though. Yes, from *OUTSIDE* the country (i.e. foreign intelligence). There were no domestic calls "tapped", without warrant. -- Keith
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 11:59 In article <eg3234$5l0$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh(a)4ax.com>, > Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > >On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) > >wrote: > > > >>In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET>, > >> Keith <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >[snip] > >>> > >>>Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without > >>>warrant. Get with the program. > >>> > >> > >>Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involve > >>someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for > >>certain key words and phrases. > >> > >[snip] > > > >That's rarely the case, and not without warrant. > > > > Yes, that is the case, and Bush claims he does not need a warrant; that he > has the inherent power as C-in-C. > > >What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_, > >"To/From" data. > > > > No, they were monitoring phone calls. Two issues. One was the foreign intelligence calls, the other was the domestic phone records that were used for data mining. > > >From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge. > > Have you been in a coma? The issue is warrantless eavesdropping. Foreign intelligence. -- Keith
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 12:01 In article <mOqdnZ3atv90gbnYnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says... > > "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76(a)News.Individual.NET... > > In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436(a)clgrps13>, nobody(a)nowhere.com > > says... > >> > >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET... > >> > >> > Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without > >> > warrant. Get with the program. > >> > >> How would you ever know? > >> > > *You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is > > slipping. > > > You _don't_ know so you assume they aren't. I've never been to the moon either, but I assume its not made of green cheese. If you have proof otherwise, I'll listen. > Interesting stand off. Have to hope the oversight committees have the same > level of constitutional values you do, but even if they don't you will never > know so the stand off continues. You're an idiot. You have no idea what my "Constitutional values" are. -- Keith
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 12:06 In article <ZUVUg.13317$7I1.10123(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76(a)News.Individual.NET... > > In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436(a)clgrps13>, nobody(a)nowhere.com > > says... > >> > >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET... > >> > >> > Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without > >> > warrant. Get with the program. > > Uhh...then why does even the White House refer to this as the "warrantless > wiretap" program? They do? I thought that was Dan Blather's (et. al.) name. > And who cares if the phone that's tapped is in another > country. If it is able to listen to something going on in a living room in > the US, then it is *domestic* surveillance. NO, it is not. It is foreign intelligence. > >> How would you ever know? > >> > > *You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is > > slipping. > > And you assume they aren't. If I'm wrong, no harm, they can still get post > facto warrants, and we still catch the bad guys. If *you're* wrong, my > Constitutional rights are being trampled. All I insist on is > accountability. Right now, the NSA is accountable only to themselves, and > this is a clear violation of the system of checks-and-balances built into > the Constitution. As a citizen of this country, I demand of my government > that the actions of one branch of the government *always* be subject to > review and approval of another branch. It's the very basis of our > Constitution...and Bush has duped you into believing that you must give up > that right. The value of the intercepts is fleeting. I don't want them waiting around for a judge to rubber stamp a intercept order for every phone call from *bad_guy.phonenumber. > Let me ask you a question.... FISA sets up courts and has a system whereby > the NSA can get warrants within a certain number of hours after a tap is > used. Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait a "certain number of hours". The value is gone by the time they can call a FISA judge. > Why do we need anything else? Not for speed. Why because you think phone calls last "a certain number of hours"? > Not for security of > the warrant information. The only plausible reason that we would need > approval for the President to do anything more than that is if he has > already authorized the NSA to do something they're not currently allowed to > do under FISA. FISA ensures that the NSA is at least accountable to some > independent entity outside the Executive branch of the government. You > don't want your government to be held accountable for their actions? Nonsense. Better double up on your hat. -- Keith
From: Keith on 5 Oct 2006 12:07
In article <45241443.FB093847(a)hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > > Keith wrote: > > > jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > > > > > Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts > > > which have nothing to do with US policy. > > > > Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their > > school buses. He knows all. > > It seems Americans are too stupid to even consider the concept of double decker > buses if you need to move more ppl than fit in a single deck one ! See folks" He is _that_ stupid. -- Keith |